Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Clause 68

Leaders Boards

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: We had quite a wide-ranging discussion at the start of my responding remarks. At this stage, I do not want to repeat the arguments why we need regional decision making and regional strategieswe went through those clearly this morning. However, it is worth noting the support that we have received for this part of the Bill. Margaret Eaton, chair of the Local Government Association, said that the Bill will
give councillors the power to effect real economic change in their local areas.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich read out a letter that the Committee received from 4NW about the views of the people in local government. I would like to add to those comments, some remarks from the chairman of the South West Strategic Leaders Board, Councillor Angus Campbell, a Conservative:
On behalf of the South West Strategic Leaders Board Im delighted that Government has confirmed the early transfer of the Assemblys functions. The Board brings Council Leaders together in the most effective decision making grouping for the South West. I believe the Assembly achieved a great deal but now is a time for a change. This announcement is a milestone in taking forward more effective decision making in the South West. I look forward to working with the Board of the Regional Development Agency as we drive forward into a new phase for the region.
Arthur Barker, from Yorkshire and Humber, said:
'Throughout Yorkshire and Humber we have a strong track record of working with cross party support
Arthur Barker is a Conservative, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will know
on issues to shape our region and make our communities better places. Local Government in the region is strong and these new arrangements will help to maximise the value we can add for our communities by collaborating at the sub-regional and regional level.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Minister is going through some of the representations that she received on the proposals. Will she tell us whether she received any representations from members of the public, given that the Bill is about local democracy, which the previous Secretary of State said is about engaging people? What evidence does the Minister have to suggest that the proposals will help to engage people directly with the process of government?

Rosie Winterton: There are two issues. Earlier on, we explored the idea for increased engagement through petitions, and through councils promoting understanding of how local people get involved, all of which the hon. Lady voted against. The reason why she opposed those measures is completely beyond mebut then again, trying to marry the different Lib Dem approaches to policy and non-policy has been a completely enlightening experience.
In terms of peoples responses to the proposals, we indeed consulted. We know that people want a powerful voice for local government to draw up strategies with regional development agencies. This morning, the hon. Lady voted against having any regional strategies, under the spurious excuse that somehow, the regional boundaries were wrong. However, in doing so, and in continuing her voting record on the Bill, she is at every turn voting down proposals that will strengthen local democracy and decision making, particularly at regional level.
I will finish by quoting Councillor Mick Henry, who is a Labour member and chair of the Association of North East Councils. He said:
This opportunity for us to more effectively shape and determine our own economic future in the region is strongly welcomed and we will be working closely with partners as part of a commitment to making implementation of the SNR proposals a success in the North East.

Stewart Jackson: The right hon. Lady is perfecting the technique of body swerving legitimate questions put by Opposition Members. She was asked about a specific point. Of course, we are happy to hear an encyclopaedia of civic life throughout Britain and views on her particular policies, but the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked a specific questionhow many representations has the Minister received from members of the public that support her proposals? It is a simple question.

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot name every individual who responded to the proposals. However, I can say that we had a number of responses to the consultation from local government. Although the Opposition spent most of the morning sneering at both councillors and their input, councillors are able to reflect the views of local people. In particular, the view they have taken with regard to ensuring that the regional development agency works closely, through the leaders board, with local councils is exactly what the public want.
The Opposition say that the regional development agencies are unaccountable and that they do not believe there is adequate local government representation. However, as soon as we bring forward proposals for that representation and partnership, they sneer about sashes and grand approaches by councillors. If they took the time to consult their own councillors, they would find that our proposals have been welcomed as a good way forward. I hope that the Committee will support the clause. It is about getting the right partnership between the RDA and local authorities in the area so that they can draw up an effective regional strategy that will help local people, local communities and local businesses.
I shall briefly address the issue about representations from members of the public. As I said, it is not possible for me to name every individual, but in the interests of being helpful I can tell the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that we summarised the feedback from the consultation in our Government response in November 2008. I am more than happy to make available to the hon. Lady or any other Committee member an analysis of the respondents.
I want to address two other things. We do not want to assert from the centre that leaders boards will look the same in every region. What we want to do is recognise that local authorities are obviously mature bodies that are able to have discussions about how to constitute the leaders boards. That is why we have said that we want them to have their own arrangements. The overall purpose is to give local authorities a stronger collective voice at regional level. We have tried to provide a transparent process for establishing the mechanism that will enable the local authorities to act collectively and with authority. It is encouraging for our approach that approximately five of the regions have put together ideas about their leaders board. There have been a number of discussions in those regions with local authorities on exactly what the board should look like.
It is important to reassure the Committee that within that process, we have been anxious to ensure that there is scrutiny so that the voluntary and trade union sectors, for example, can retain in their discussions with local authority leaders some of their input to regional assemblies.

David Curry: As we have said, it is expected to take five years to produce a plan, but the complexion of local government in any area could change quite dramatically in that time. The plans must be approved by the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State have any notional guidelines on the maximum number of people for a leaders board? Is the leader appointed personally or ex officio? The south-east region has 77 councils to represent. If the leader represents a bunch of district councils, for example, should there be arrangements for changing them in the event of a significant change of political complexion during the five years of drawing up the plan? What would be the term of office? What would the Secretary of State regard as a sensible period of appointment for someone on the board?

Rosie Winterton: That is the point of establishing the scheme. I am not sure whether the official Opposition did not want a scheme or whether they voted with the Lib Dems that there should not be a scheme, but the idea of the scheme addresses exactly the right hon. Gentlemans pointit enables participating authorities to set out both the composition and operation of the board. We would expect it to include information, for example, on how the leaders board proposes to resolve differences of opinion within the board, between the authorities that it represents, and between the board and the RDA.
On representation, we have said that the representatives on the leaders board do not have to be leaders. However, we will advise that they should be people of sufficient stature so that, for example, they can make decisions on behalf of the authority and represent it.

David Curry: But elected.

Rosie Winterton: All elected members. Of course, leaders board members need to be able to command the authority of the council that they represent, but we are not dictating that they have to be the leaders of those councils. The person must be someone whom the authority believes to be a good and strong representative of its views.

Peter Lilley: The Minister has exposed a lacuna in the Bill. I can find no clause that defines what the leader on the leaders board is supposed to lead. She spoke as if the leaders are to be leaders of local authorities, but as I understand it, they could be leaders of business, trade unions, churches, charities or any kind of leader. There is no restriction in the Bill to say that the person has to be an elected member of a council. Indeed, a council official could be appointed to the leaders board. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister could point me to the clause that would expose my error.

Rosie Winterton: The clause makes it clear, and we have always been clear, that we are talking about representatives. That is the democratic accountability that we have built in.

Nick Raynsford: I believe that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was not able to be with us this morning, so he did not hear me read out a letter from 4NW, the regional leaders forum for the north-west of England. It gave a very clear indication of the composition of the leaders board being set up in that region, which comprises leaders of relevant local authoritiesnot all the local authorities, but the main local authorities in the areaalong with representatives of the business community, the voluntary sector, trade unions and other people. They are people who will act in a leadership role within the region to help to drive forward the economic development agenda, which is what the Bill is all about. I thus strongly urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to be robust in defending the principles that are set out in the Governments policy, which the Conservatives seem to have some difficulty appreciating.

Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely[Interruption.] As I have said, the basic problem, which my right hon. Friend has once again put his finger on, is that the official Opposition really do not want anything to do with regional strategy at all and, frankly, they do not believe in the economic model that we have established. Therefore, on every occasion, they are basically doing what they can to undermine the principles that we are trying to establish in the Bill.

Paul Goodman: Which part of clause 68 defines who these leaders will be?

Rosie Winterton: Regarding how the leaders boards are constituted, we have said to the individual authorities that they will need to come forward with a scheme that will then be put forward to the Secretary of State. That is set out very clearly in clause 68(3). Members of the Committee will see that, within that measure, the following authorities are obviously set out:
a district council...a county council...a National Park authority...the Broads Authority.
It is the participating authorities themselves that must prepare the scheme. Inevitably, it will be the elected members of those authorities who must agree who will go forward to represent each authority. We have also made it very clear that the person who goes forward on to the leaders board must be somebody who is not necessarily the leader of the council or authority, but a representative who is able to make decisions, particularly about the allocation of funding or resources. That person must be able to be a representative of the council or authority itself.
In all the cases that have emerged, the people who have been put forward by the local authorities have been elected representatives. For example, in the Yorkshire and Humber area, they have been joining in with the joint boards themselves. That is why the schemes themselves will look very closely at democratically elected representatives. This is what local authorities have asked for. They asked for the schemes to be established in this way so that they themselves can have elected representatives on the leaders board.

David Curry: I seek clarification. My understanding is that the central decision-making unit, to put it that way, would be composed of nominated members of the regional development agency, although perhaps not all the members. However, in the case of Yorkshire and Humber, there would presumably be eight members. The other half of the board would consist of people who were exclusively elected local authority representatives so that there would be a balance between the quango representatives and the local authority representatives. Are we now saying that the leaders board may include people who have not been elected? Secondly, does the Minister have any guidelines in mind as to whether or not there should be some broad political balance among those people who are elected to serve? It is easier to achieve that in some parts of the country than others. It would be quite difficult to do that in the south-east at the moment, but there have been times when it would have been difficult in the north-east, for example. Alternatively, is a desire to seek political balance not a relevant consideration?

Rosie Winterton: Taking Yorkshire and Humber as an example of how the scheme has been drawn up, there has been agreement in that region to have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, eight members of the leaders board out of approximately 22 local authorities. That has been agreed by the local authorities and all councillors who are represented. Below that, there are a number of subsidiary boards relating to housing, transport, planning and economic regenerationthose are roughly the advisory committees.
In Yorkshire and HumberI am sure this applies to other regions as wellthere has been a keenness to involve people who might previously have been on the regional assembly. That is sometimes achieved as part of a scrutiny role, and sometimes there has been consideration of co-opting people on to some of the boards that have been established, such as people from the voluntary sector and the trade union movement, and representatives of the faith movement or environmental groups. There are a number of ways in which people can remain involved in the decision-making process.

David Curry: But the holding companyif I may use that expressionthat makes a decision is composed exclusively of members of the regional development agency and elected local authority representatives, whether or not they are leaders of individual local authorities.

Rosie Winterton: The current interim bodies have to abide by existing legislation, which requires the regional planning body to include other stakeholders. However, as I have said, regions such as Yorkshire and Humber have been keen to ensure that other voices are heard, whether by scrutiny or by the ability co-opt members, as sometimes happens. The new legislation itself will not require other stakeholders to be involved, but I think there has been sensitivity about ensuring that people do not feel that they have been excluded from the drawing up of regional strategies. In fact, people felt that there was a good reason to have a regional strategy on the environment and other areas.
We are aware that the leaders board schemes might, outside the scheme itself, want to involve other stakeholders in scrutiny, or involve them through the local authority structure. We will also make it clear in our early advice about the leaders boards that we expect the inner leaders boardif you liketo be made up of elected members. We are keen to ensure that there is sensitivity about the fact that there are many other groups and organisations that want to have an inputthey have already been doing so through the assemblies. We will therefore look at how we can encourage scrutiny of proposed plans.

David Curry: There is no point in getting rid of the existing regional assemblies if, in practice, they are then duplicated in the new structure. May I be absolutely clear that the main decision-making body will be exclusively made up of RDA and local authority people who have been elected and have their own mandate, and that whatever subsidiary bodies they bring in, that central core remains exclusively elected people on the RDA?

Rosie Winterton: That is what I have just said. I will say this again if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to: the early advice will make it very clear that we expect the leaders board to be made up of elected members. Having said that, I think that the clause is the right way to get a balance between elected democratic representation and the strategic focus of the regional development agencies. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Responsible regional authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy: I rise to make a few brief comments. We discussed on the previous clause the extent to which leaders boards and the indirectly elected representatives who, it now seems, will sit on them give a gloss of legitimacy to the work that the RDAs undertake. The clause reveals who actually is in charge. Although on earlier clauses we asked, Is this really necessary? the key question in the next few clauses is, Who is in charge of the process? The clause makes it clear that the RDA is the first among equals in the partnership between it and the leaders board because, if I understand the clause correctly, the leaders board can be suspended and, if that happens, the RDA stays in charge.
Our earlier amendments tried to firmly establish that even though the leaders boards were indirectly electedwe wanted to find ways to make them more directly and democratically representative and accountablethe responsible regional authority had some kind of democratic legitimacy and would not be overpowered by the RDA. Our main concern about the clause is that it will still give a huge amount of power to the RDA and undermine a clear chain of accountability.

Stewart Jackson: I support the hon. Ladys comments because this short clause seems to encapsulate a fundamental dichotomy between what the Minister says is its purpose, which is essentially to require the leaders boards and RDAs to act jointly, and its substance. Subsection (2) is effectively open-ended. It could give rise to an open-ended arrangement whereby a leaders board is unable to operate effectively for unspecified reasons, which may come to light and we may have more information about via regulation. We do not know on what basis that might happenit might be a problem with a group on the board having an agenda over regional issues at variance with another group on the leaders board, or it might be a financial or organisational issue.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we highlighted in our discussion the need, wherever possible, to give discretion and freedom to local authorities to develop appropriate arrangements in their areas. The Governments intention is that local authorities should have a good measure of discretion, within a framework that ensures that the new leaders boards work and that is subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is wrong, that there should be no such discretion and that there should be no scope to have different arrangements and, if necessary, to decide not to have a leaders board? If that happens, the means to continue the arrangements must be in place. Unless the regional development agency is in a suitable position, we could be in stasis. Does he recognise that the measure is a necessary safeguard against that?

Stewart Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman makes some key philosophical points about the relationship between local and central Government, but that is not relevant to subsection (2).

Julia Goldsworthy: I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has got things the wrong way round. The previous clause requires leaders boards to be established and gives the Secretary of State the right not to go ahead with them. Whether or not they are established is within the gift of the Secretary of State, not the local authority.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady comes to my point before I do.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he does not wax lyrical about transport policy in Greater Manchester.

Ian Stewart: That is my job.

Stewart Jackson: It is the hon. Gentlemans job, but perhaps not in this Committee. The issue is about the Secretary of States powers. The practical ramifications of the clause are that the Secretary of State could maintain an open-ended arrangement in which there was an RDA but no leaders board ad infinitum, thus subverting the democratic voice of local people. Incidentally, we would like to say on record that the regional assemblies do not get a mentionthey are dead and buried in a scheduleso, in terms of democracy, they are gone. The subsection allows the Secretary of State, if he or she wishes, to have only the RDAs making decisions, and that situation could drag on.
The Royal Town Planning Institute in particular draws attention to the lack of a dispute resolution process. The Minister may say that that will be covered by regulations, and I will accept that in good faith. There may be contested policy positions that will not be improved if a leaders board is not in situ and the RDA is governing alone. There may be delay and deadlock as a result.

Ian Stewart: I point out that there are integrated transport issues in the Bill.
I am perplexed by the hon. Gentlemans line. First, he put it to the Committee that leaders boards may not go ahead by local decision, and he then accepted an intervention from the Liberal Front-Bench spokesperson who said that the decision-making power was with the Secretary of State. How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those two positions?

Stewart Jackson: I am merely reading the relevant subsection. If there is any inconsistency in the argument, it is in the drafting of the Bill and this clause in particular. I hope the Minister will clarify the situation; but as it stands, we have serious concerns.

Rosie Winterton: Clause 69 identifies the responsible regional authorities referred to throughout the remainder of this part of the Bill as the regional development agency and the leaders board for the region. Subsection (2) is quite explanatory. It states that
if during any period after the coming into force of this section there is no leaders board for a region
for example, if the local authorities cannot agree on the constitution of a leaders board, or if nobody in the region wants to participatethe responsible regional authority will be the RDA on its own. We do not want that to happenwe want leaders boards to be properly constitutedbut we have to plan for an eventuality where the leaders board breaks down or has not been properly constituted, to ensure there would be a responsible regional authority in the area. There is nothing sinister about that; it is a fail-safe in the Bill for the reasons that I have set out. That is why I urge the Committee to support clause 69.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Sustainable development

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: I have two concerns about the clause on sustainable development. We touched on the issue in debates on earlier clauses. I am concerned about the wording. The Campaign to Protect Rural England strongly makes the point in its briefing that the wording is not strong enough to be meaningful. The CPRE is making a value judgment between the previous objectives of regional development agencieseffectively to drive residential housing development and disperse significant housing numbers from central Governmentand the wider remit of social and economic growth and sustainability. Therefore, we do not think that the wording in the clause is sufficiently robust and, on that basis, do not support it.
To be helpful, the Minister will also know that the CPRE made the sensible suggestion in its submission to the Committee that the purposes of an RDA, as set out in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, should be amended, so that it is required to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in all the work that it undertakes, rather than only
where it is relevant to its area to do so.
All members of the Committee will have received that briefing. For those reasons, we think that there is an alternative route for the Government to look at sustainability and sustainable development. We do not think that the clauses current wording is sufficiently robust and, on that basis, do not feel disposed to support it.

Julia Goldsworthy: I want to add to that briefly. The debate goes back to a discussion that we had on a previous clause. That provision seems to have been added as a footnote to the range of things that the regional strategy needs to consider. The core function of the regional strategy is to set up policies on sustainable economic growth; but on development, it only sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Because neither sustainable, nor sustainability are included in its core mission, it is difficult to see how they can have some additional regard to that. If it is really part of their core duty, why is that not set out in the earlier clause, rather than just added in parenthesis at the end?

David Curry: I am slightly puzzled by subsection (2). Either something is sustainable or it is not. I am curious about why we have that little special reference to good design. Which lobby is responsible? Is this Lord Rogers striking again? I agree with the comments that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made on Chelsea barracks, which I thought were absolutely spot on. It is curious that the clause stresses the importance of good design. How about stressing the importance of fuel efficiency, of trying to have combined heat and power or of not having to travel by private vehicle? Why has that one little point about design suddenly popped up? I would have thought that either we had sustainability or we did not.

Nick Raynsford: This has all the hallmarks of a subsection inserted in another place, where I understand that there is a powerful lobby for design interests, and that perhaps gives a flavour of how curiously legislation can be amended.

Rosie Winterton: I hope that the Committee will support this important clause, which relates to sustainable development. It will be extremely worrying if the Liberal Democrats, after all they have said on sustainability, decide to vote against it. It uses the standard legal formulation used in various pieces of legislation that have been passed by the House, most recently the Planning Act 2008. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, the design reference is replicated from the 2008 Act.

Julia Goldsworthy: Let me make the Liberal Democrat position clear. We think it better that the provision is included as a separate clause than not at all, but we are unhappy that it was not set out in the core function of the strategy in earlier clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Review and revision by responsible regional authorities

Stewart Jackson: I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 71, page 52, line 21, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 111, in clause 71, page 52, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
Clause stand part.

Stewart Jackson: I am glad that there is some consensus among Opposition Members about the aspect of the Bill that deals with review and revision by responsible regional authorities. At the risk of being repetitious, I believe that the clause exemplifies the over-mighty powers of the Secretary of State, especially subsections (4) and (5). That is why I will be speaking primarily to our amendments dealing with those subsections, and supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment to remove one of them, as well as discussing clause stand part. We believe that if the subsections remain, they will invalidate the whole clause.
The clause demonstrates an underlying distrust in local authorities, which are closer to changes and variations in local economies, industry, demographic factors, society and so on than regional bodies are. Once again, the central tenet, as advanced by Ministers, that the Bill is all about sharing power and devolving it from the top down, is undermined. The philosophy that the Bill is all about local people and decisionsit was advanced strongly by the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), whom we miss alreadyis barely credible.
We know that the Government missed an opportunity last July to put flesh on the bones of community empowerment, which is nowhere contained in the Bill, but the clause shows that the Secretary of State wants to be involved in the minutiae and to reach into every nook and cranny of local decision making, particularly in the area of directions such as draft revision and the direction under subsection (5) about the timetable and its content. In our opinion, a generic template or format will be rolled out across the country, with the ultimate power in Whitehall, and diversity of provision, ideas and local decision making will be cast to one side. For those reasons, we will vote for our amendment and that of the Liberal Democrats, and we will vote against clause stand part.

Julia Goldsworthy: Our two amendments are very similar and raise essentially the same question: once again, who is in charge of the revision process? It is clear from the clauseparticularly from subsection (4), which the amendments would deletethat the Secretary of State can reserve the right to require changes at any time that he or she feels appropriate, and can direct the responsible regional authority to do so.
It is clear that the Secretary of State can initiate a review. What I am not as clear about is which halfwhether it is either, one or bothcan initiate a review of the regional strategy. Under the previous clause, the responsible regional authority is made up of the regional development agency and the leaders board. We know from clause 71 that the responsible regional authorities may prepare a draft revision. Must any revision by agreed by both the leaders board and the regional development agency before the revision can go ahead? Can one of them veto it? If the regional development agency wanted to revise its strategy and the leaders board said no, who would win that debate? The clause is not at all clear on that.
To understand the power relationship between the leaders board and the regional development agency, it is important to understand exactly how the process would work. We are concerned about the extent of the powers that are being withheld, and held instead by the Secretary of State, but we also want to understand exactly what the relationship would be at the level of the responsible regional authority.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady touches on an important point. Clause 71(2) effectively gives the Secretary of State a double lock, because the Secretary of State has that power and also has indirect power, having appointed the RDA. Notwithstanding that it might not even have been constituted by that time, under the previous clause, the leaders board can be outvoted, but its members are the elected people and they are closer to the action when it comes to revising regional strategies.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. Again, I draw hon. Members attention to the title of the Bill, which is supposed to be about local democracy. This measure exposes, again, that more powers are being retained and kept within the gift of the Secretary of State than are being held by people who are directly democratically accountable for their decisions. The measure is another example of the Government talking the talksaying that they want to improve participation and accountabilitybut not walking the walk.

Rosie Winterton: The clause addresses the issues that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised when he talked about how long particular strategies would last. He noted that circumstances might change, and that is exactly why the clause is in the Bill. It allows the responsible authority to say, We believe it is expedient to revise the strategies that we have at the moment, so it addresses his previous point. I am therefore slightly confused as to why the Opposition want to take this clause out.

David Curry: On clause 71(4)(a), I presume, then, that rules and regulations will specify when the regional body, rather than the Secretary of State, can decide to make a revision. Is that the point of that measure? Of the two parts to this clause, does one provide for the initiative to come from the regional body, and the other for it to come from the Secretary of State? Have I read it correctly?

Rosie Winterton: Subsection (4)(a) is saying that, after consultation, we will set out in regulations where there might be appropriate points for the Secretary of State to say that there should be revisions. Subsection (2) sets out our belief that the responsible authorities should have the power to revise something if they feel that that is right. Over and above that, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, yes, we would want the leaders board and the RDA to trigger a revision jointly, but where there is disagreement, and one body does not believe that it should be revised, the fall-back is in subsections (4) and (5), which the Opposition are trying to remove. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments and to vote for the clause, which builds into the whole process many of the points that have been raised. [Interruption.]

Stewart Jackson: I was stunned by the eloquence, charm and wit of the Minister, Mr. Illsley[Interruption.]but, unfortunately, not by the content of what she said. She and I are seeing a lot of each other this week, as we debated the much less interesting topic of business rates last night.
My final point is that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about the imbalance between the respective centres of power. Earlier, we heard about the Lilley lacuna. We also have the Goldsworthy lacuna

David Curry: The Goldsworthy gap.

Stewart Jackson: The Goldsworthy gap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon helps me out in his customary way. There is an imbalance between the respective centres of power of the RDA, the Secretary of State and the leaders board.

Julia Goldsworthy: From the Ministers explanation, the situation is worse than I had feared. It seems as if the regional development agency and the leaders board could say that they do not want a revision, and the Secretary of State can impose one. Perhaps the leaders board will say that it does not want one, and the RDA will say that it does, and the Secretary of State can still impose it. The presumption is always in favour of a revision, which it seems will always be within the power of the Secretary of State.

Stewart Jackson: Exactly. Let me make a tangible contribution by way of an example. Suppose there was a west midlands regional strategy in an area where there were going to be significant job losses in the future at an important regional employer, such as in automotive engineering or the manufacturing industry. The leaders board might consider that regional strategy worthy of a rewrite and a significant revision, in order to take into account the economic, social and demographic factors consequent to that significant macro-economic change, which had perhaps involved the loss of 5,000 or 6,000 jobs. The Secretary of State, working with the regional development agency in the west midlands, might decide that that rewrite was not appropriate and that there were other priorities. The Conservative party believes that the important flexibility is not built into the clause. For that reason, we are not minded to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

None - Clause 72

Community involvement

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 72, page 52, line 32, leave out from must to end of line 35 and insert
consult with payers of domestic and non-domestic rates and their elected representatives and prepare and publish a statement of their policies as to how they will involve the public in this process..

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 115, in clause 72, page 52, line 35, at end insert
(1A) A statement under subsection (1) must include policies as to the involvement of each of the following authorities whose area falls wholly or partly within the region
(a) a county council;
(b) a metropolitan district council;
(c) a district council for an area for which there is no county council;
(d) a National Park authority;
(e) the Broads Authority;
(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(g) parish councils..
Amendment 113, in clause 72, page 52, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 114, in clause 72, page 53, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
Clause stand part.

Daniel Rogerson: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, as we continue to make our way through the Bill with cross-party consensus. [Interruption.] Well, a two-party consensus, at least.
We move on to the issue of community involvement, which relates to how responsible regional authorities will involve people in the exercise of their functions. That is a crucial matter for whatever those new bodies will be. It has struck me and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that the clause allows responsible regional authorities to define for themselves who should be involved. That definition will then be referred to the Secretary of State, but it is really left to those who will carry out the function to determine who they will consult about how well they are doing. That does not seem robust enough in terms of allowing people in the relevant regions to scrutinise what their regional authorities are doing on their behalf. The amendments seek to address the issue.
Amendment 112 states that those who pay tax to local authorities and their elected representatives at all levels, which include, for example, parish councils, would have to be consulted on a regional authoritys proposals for its region. Amendment 115, which was tabled after consulting the county councils network, is an alternative way of addressing the issue, and was tabled for the purposes of debate. It sets out in a more detailed way the sorts of authorities that might be included. The amendments are not necessarily prescriptive, but they are intended to prompt debate. We feel that there should be a little more prescription that clearly sets out that all the people in a region and their democratically elected representatives ought to be consulted about what is being proposed for their region, as opposed to allowing the regional bodies to determine who they will ask about whether they are doing a good job. Amendments 113 and 114 are consequential amendments.
On amendment 112, I would like to hear more from the Government about who they feel should be consulted and why, and what checks, other than the Secretary of State rubber-stamping what comes from the regional authorities, will be in place. People who live in the relevant regions, and who pay local and national taxes that fund the regional authorities work, need to feel confident that their views are being taken into account.

Stewart Jackson: We will support the amendment, principally because a clause that supports community involvement, such as clause 72, needs to use more circumspect language. It is inappropriate to use a phrase such as have an interest in that context, because it refers to a value judgment of an interest that someone might have. An interest can have one meaning for one person and a different meaning for another person. The definition and terminology are too loose, and for that reason alone we are minded not to support the clause.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman said he believed that there was a need for more circumspect language. Will he tell the Committee why it is appropriate to support an amendment that refers to the domestic rates, which, as I understand it, were abolished some 20 years ago? Is that really circumspect language?

Stewart Jackson: Well, the Liberal Democrats are nothing if not mischievous, and I suspect they are attempting to keep esteemed and statesmanlike parliamentarians and Privy Counsellors, such as the right hon. Gentleman, awake and abreast of the debate. I have to say that I had not spotted that particular mistake myself, but I suspect that the Liberal Democrats will now be seeking a new legislation drafting intern.
Notwithstanding the deliberate error, the substance of the amendment is correct. However, the need for a wider and more focused consultation should be more explicit in the Bill. Linked with that is amendment 115, which is explicit. We all have a great deal of time for our colleagues in the county council networkI suspect that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has fewer colleagues in that network than he had two weeks agoso the Opposition support this amendment. Although we believe that it is important to have significant community involvement, the wording of the clause is too loose. The amendment would ameliorate that deficit, and on that basis we support it.

Rosie Winterton: Well, Mr. Illsley, what can I say? On the one hand the Opposition say that the wording is too loose and on the other they want to replace it with wording on a subject that does not even exist. It is beyond belief. Seriously, we need to consider how prescriptive this Committee should be about the consultation. I say that because the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne would have the effect of removing from the consultation some non-governmental bodies that might have an interest in the subject matter of the strategy. I do not think that any of us wants to see that happening. It might be important that in some areas it is not just domestic and non-domestic ratepayers who are consulted.
In the other place, we gave a commitment that we would issue guidance about types of bodies that should be involved in the process. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt to set that out in the Bill itself. I therefore urge that the Committee rejects these amendments and supports the clause standing part of the Bill.

Daniel Rogerson: I seek your guidance, Mr. Illsley, about whether it might be possible to call for a separate vote on amendment 115 and not on amendment 112, which is the initial amendment.
With his usual eye for detail, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has hit upon a slight drafting error in amendment 112. It just goes to show that in discussion, it pays to be a little clearer when drafting such things. The principle behind the amendment is clear. I do not like to use the word taxpayers to describe residents of an area, but those who contribute to funds that will pay for work on behalf of their area should be consulted, as should their elected representatives at every level.

David Curry: I get slightly squeamish when I see the words parish councils. Some parish councils cover cities of 15,000 people. The town councils of Ripon and Skipton are both parish councils in constitutional terms. The village of 300 people in which I live has a parish council. I had better not say what I think of it, but I would not entrust it with cutting the grass along the river. I am slightly concerned[Interruption.] There is no point in being daft. Some councils are very effective and others are rather less so, to use the words of the Bill. What parish councils does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? We could spend a lifetime on consulting.

Daniel Rogerson: The whole point of community involvement is that information is made available and people have the chance to respond. If smaller parish councils choose not to respond, that is within their rights. Of course there will be capacity issues. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are some quite large parish councils. In my constituency, Truro city council is a parish council, although those who do not know the area well might think that is a principal authority. It would no doubt want to contribute. Parish councils are made up of elected representatives of local people. There will not be a problem if they choose to respond and it would be welcome.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Daniel Rogerson: I will in a second or two. The Minister said she felt that the amendments were too prescriptive. There is a certain irony in the Government saying that they want to draft things loosely when a huge amount of the Bill goes into great detail about how councils should reply to petitions. To repeat the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, let a thousand flowers bloom.
The intention behind the amendments, particularly amendment 115, was to say that such authorities must be consulted. We do not want to say that other people cannot be consulted, but to be a bit more prescriptive about those who will be. Should regional authorities want to consult other people or organisations, they would be perfectly able to do so.

Nick Raynsford: Does it not show a certain wooliness of thinking on the part of the Liberal party that two of its amendments would require that every one of the 8,000 parish councils be consultedsome of which may not be paragons of good, efficient local administration, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed outwhile amendment 112 would ensure that nobody who pays council tax would be consulted?

Daniel Rogerson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. There is a serious point about the involvement of parish councils, which I feel strongly about. It is clear from speaking to the National Association of Local Councils that parish councils do great work in their communities. They are quite often the first port of call because parish councillors are often well known and visible in the community, sometimes more so than principal authority councillors. I do not think that there is any harm in saying that they should be written to. Whether or not they hold a parish meeting for a whole day to decide on their response is up to them.

David Curry: Following the hon. Gentlemans point about the lowest level of democracy, is he aware of the lengths to which parish councillors go to ensure that they do not have to have an election because doing so costs money? Little village parish councils go to huge lengths to ensure that the number of people standing corresponds exactly to the number of vacancies. The idea of having an election is enough to give apoplexy to the entire village community.

Daniel Rogerson: I thought we were talking about consultations rather than elections. I am interested to hear about the practices used in parish council elections in the right hon. Gentlemans part of Yorkshire. The 70 parish councils in my constituency, some of which go down to parish meeting size, take such issues very seriously and there is usually a great deal of involvement. There are perhaps one or two parish councils that are not contested, but I can think of some recent elections that have been highly contentious and vigorously fought. I do not want to be sidetracked, but I think parish councils are worth getting involved in, and there is no harm in listing parish councils as bodies that need and ought to be consulted.

Stewart Jackson: To help the hon. Gentleman, the term parish council can be generic. A township of about 12,000 people in my constituency that was developed by Peterborough Development Corporation is an urban area, but it is represented by a body called Bretton parish council. The people who are elected to it would of course want an input to the regional strategy in my areacurrently, my constituency is within a sustainable community area and has a significant amount of housing mooted for it. Parish councils are not just about representing the 60 residents of Little Snoring by the Tamar; they can be quite large entities. Such local democracies are as close as many ordinary voters who are not interested in politics get to civic administration.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that was made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and others. There are some large parish councils. Newquay town council in my constituency represents about 20,000 people and is a significant body.
It would be good if the Bill included a provision that such important local bodies will be consulted. Nothing in the amendment says that other bodies could not be consulted, which the Minister seemed to imply. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 115, in clause 72, page 52, line 35, at end insert
(1A) A statement under subsection (1) must include policies as to the involvement of each of the following authorities whose area falls wholly or partly within the region
(a) a county council;
(b) a metropolitan district council;
(c) a district council for an area for which there is no county council;
(d) a National Park authority;
(e) the Broads Authority;
(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(g) parish councils..(Dan Rogerson.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

i in public

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 73, page 53, line 4, leave out may and insert must.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 117, in clause 73, page 53, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Julia Goldsworthy: The clause relates to the circumstances under which the responsible regional authorities can call in for an examination in public any draft revisions that they make to their regional spatial strategy. We tabled the amendments because we are concerned that the Bill gives responsible regional authorities only the option of calling for such examinations, not a requirement to do so.

David Curry: I am slightly puzzled because I recall a group of amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled that sought to replace the word must with the word may, and amendment 116 seeks to replace the word may with the word must. I am confused about where we are heading.

Julia Goldsworthy: We are trying, in all aspects of the position that we are taking on the Bill, to encourage people as much as possible to make a contribution and to have an impact on the process. Our concern is that the responsible regional authorities alone have that option; individuals might have huge concerns, but they have no recourse to get them heard.
I am sure that the Minister, in her response, will say that there is a route for people to call in if they have concerns. For example, if the responsible regional authorities undertook a revision that they said was not significant enough to require an examination in public, what would the process be if members of the public felt that those revisions were significant? At the moment I do not see any ability for there to be a call-in for an examination in public, which is why amendment 116 replaces may with must and why we have consequential amendment 117, which is a mechanism to ensure that people have the option to get those examinations heard and on the record. Whether we press the amendments to a vote will depend on whether we are satisfied that such a call-in option and process is available.

Nick Raynsford: I am confused by the hon. Ladys amendment, because she proposes to substitute may for must in subsection (1) but does not propose to eliminate subsection (2), which leaves to the body the discretion to decide whether to arrange for an examination in public. If she follows down subsection (2), she will see exactly her points of concernan examination in public should occur when there is an issue of sufficient material relevance or which arouses sufficient public interest to merit it, but there should not be an obligation for an examination in public for a de minimis alteration, perhaps just changing one small detail. Does she not understand that the clause as currently drafted allows exactly that discretion, with the safeguard of the Secretary of State being able to insist on a call-in for an examination in public if the authority fails to do so? The hon. Ladys concern appears to be met rather better by the clause as drafted than by her amendments.

Julia Goldsworthy: As I was explaining when the right hon. Gentleman intervened, this is a series of probing amendments, to make sure that the safeguards are in place. As we have seen in a number of other clauses, the instinctive response of the Government seems to be to provide safeguards by giving a power to the Secretary of State. We would like to approach it from the opposite perspective: we think the safeguards need to be put in place by giving the powers to people. We shall listen carefully to the Ministers comments, but she needs to go further in demonstrating how the entire process is designed to be responsive to the views and needs of people rather than to those of various quangos and other interested parties, which seems to be the main thrust behind an awful lot of the previous clauses debated.

Stewart Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I seek your guidance. Are we debating just amendments 116 and 117, or are we debating stand part as well? Forgive me.

Eric Illsley: We are just debating amendments 116 and 117.

Stewart Jackson: In that case, I shall be extremely circumspect and say that we will reserve judgment on the amendment and on how we voteif there is a Divisionuntil we have heard the specific answers of the Minister.

Rosie Winterton: As has been said, the aim of the clause is to provide for the regional strategy to be subject to testing by an examination in public held by an independent person. That principle was endorsed by the feedback to our consultation last year. As has been said, the Liberal Democrat amendments would make the EIP mandatory. What we have tried to achieve in the legislation is to enable the responsible regional authorities to consider the extent of revisions and the level of interest when deciding whether to arrange for an EIP. It is important to give the responsible regional authorities that discretion, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, if there were only minor and uncontroversial adjustments to a strategy, it would be ridiculous to say that there had to be an examination in public by an independent person, which then had to be sent to the Secretary of State. We are trying to capture the idea that the strategies will be able to be scrutinised, but at the same time find a reasonable way to do it.
If the responsible regional authorities ignore the extent of the revisions and the level of interest and say, We are simply not going to have any kind of examination in public, the Secretary of State has the option of arranging one instead. That is why we have a fall-back in subsection (6). We certainly feel that that is an important reserve power, which amendment 117 would remove. I think that we have struck the right balance: the provision is not over-burdensome to the responsible regional authorities, but at the same time, we have a power whereby people can make representations if they feel that the responsible regional authorities are ignoring their views. For that reason, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Julia Goldsworthy: Our question is: what happens in the event of a dispute over whether the revisions are significant? At the very least we want reassurances that if the Secretary of State is to be the person who makes that decision, a low threshold needs to be set for making the decision to call the matter into an examination in public.

Stewart Jackson: By way of support, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich used the term de minimis. We know from our experience and from consultation with our constituents that de minimis can mean different things to different people. If one looks at matters such as the Gypsy and Traveller policy or density targets in the east of Englandthe regional spatial strategyand the whole question of examinations in public, one sees that the revisions there are not de minimis in anyones book. I very much empathise with the hon. Lady in that respect and I can see the dangers that she highlights.

Julia Goldsworthy: To make a perhaps mischievous point, given that we have eight pages of primary legislation on how local authorities should respond to petitions, perhaps some provision should have been made for responsible regional authorities to respond. Some form of a petition system would be the best way for people to register concerns if they felt that the revisions were significant enough to warrant an examination in public. I would have preferred to see a mechanism such as that, which allows people to get their voices heard, rather than having to appeal to the Secretary of State to make a judgment. If the Government were being consistent in the application of their principles, perhaps we would have seen a petition system to allow for the matter to be called in, instead of seeing recourse to the Secretary of State. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: We remain slightly uncomfortable about clause 73(2)(b), which refers to
the level of interest shown in the draft revision.
We are concerned about the wording. We recognise that the examination in public is a vital element of local democracy and local accountability. I hope the Minister will also be willing to discuss subsection (7), which states, rather oddly:
No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public under this section.
She might say that that is a formulation used in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but I do not know why it is necessary. It seems extremely prescriptive to put in the Bill the fact that someone does not have a right to contribute.

Rosie Winterton: I will address the hon. Gentlemans last point, because I feel that I have covered most of the surrounding issues previously. I confirm that there is not an absolute right for a person to be heard at an examination in public. It is for the EIP panel to decide whom to invite to take part. That is important when making sure that any examination is fair and proportionate. It is in the Bill simply for that reason.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Matters to be taken into account in revision

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Approval of revision by Secretary of State

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 75, page 54, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 119, in clause 75, page 54, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 120, in clause 75, page 54, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

Daniel Rogerson: In the hope that we can move swiftly on, I will be brief. The amendments reflect our suspicion of the Secretary of States role in overriding what might have been agreed under arrangements already in place. We have said before that those arrangements are imperfect, but if we are to have a slightly more accountable system, we really prefer that it stand, rather than have the Secretary of State able to nitpick every revision made by regional bodies. It undermines the whole purpose of any form of regional government in which local government is involved if the Secretary of State can overrule it.

Nick Raynsford: We passed rather rapidly over the clause 74, which required the responsible regional authorities to take account of regional strategies in adjoining areas. In the event of the regional body approving a strategy that is completely in conflict with that of another region and that other region objecting strongly, the revisions that the hon. Gentleman is proposing leave no mechanism for resolution. Does he not recognise that there will be circumstances in which some sort of higher authority has to take a look at situations in which there is a conflict between the regional strategies prepared by different regions? Frankly, it is not satisfactory to remove the role of the Secretary of State without providing an alternative mechanism for resolving such disputes.

Daniel Rogerson: The preceding clause refers to the need for the responsible regional authorities to have regard to certain matters. If they do not have regard to the matters listed, we have a problem, because those strategies cannot come into force unless the regions get together and resolve the issue.
I am concerned about the fact that, as is often the case when discussing such matters, if there is a reserved power for a Secretary of State in a Bill, the Government say, It will only be used very sparingly, and you must trust us that it is absolutely fine. We tend to take a slightly more suspicious view, which is that the instincts of Government and Whitehall are not to be charitable when handed power, but to interfere more if the power is there for them to do so. I think that we differ in our view of how Government works.
The principle behind the amendments is to allow responsible regional authorities to make amendments to their strategy. I am mindful of the previous clause, which we did not oppose, and that there are other issues that need to be dealt with. However, we hope that it will not be for the Secretary of State to be involved with and sign off everything.

Rosie Winterton: I can be brief because my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out one obvious scenario in which the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendment would be to remove the ability to sort out cases in which there were differences in regional strategies between regions. If, for example, the responsible regional authorities in one area do not agree, the Secretary of State needs to have this power, because it is important that there is an arbiter. Also, if any agreed strategy had completely ignored any of the priorities set out nationallyperhaps through this Houseit is important for the Secretary of State to be able to intervene in those circumstances. That is why I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendments.

Daniel Rogerson: One of the important reasons for tabling such amendments is to get clarification from the Minister on the record about the sort of circumstances in which the power would be used. We have done that and we are mindful that people will now have something to reflect back on in the future, and that, of course, any future Secretary of State can be reminded of what was said if the Bill comes into force. Although I am not entirely convinced that the power will always be used in the way that the Minister has set out, I hope that that is the case and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 75, page 54, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert
(3) If after proceedings under subsection (2)(b) the Secretary of State proposes to make any modifications to the draft they must publish
(a) the changes proposed,
(b) the reasons for doing so.
(3A) Any person may make representations on the proposed changes..

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in clause 75, page 54, line 44, at end insert
including the reasons for making any changes to the submitted draft revision..

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I were discussing earlier the principle I was debating with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, which is that the Liberal Democrats seem to see the worst in central Government and the best in local government. When a party is in government, perhaps it tends to see things the other way around. The principle behind amendments 55 and 56 is to ensure that, where the Secretary of State has the power to approve or not approve draft provisionswe have moved on from the debate about whether or not the Secretary of State will have that powerand intervene in that way, the reasons behind his intervention and the type of changes that he wishes to make are published for consultation, so that Secretary of State must consult widely before taking any action that the Bill would allow him to take.

Rosie Winterton: Again, I understand that the amendments may be probing. However, they are unnecessary because the Bill already requires that there is public consultation before the Secretary of State finally approves the strategy and the responsible regional authorities publish it. It has become established practice to give reasons for any changes that are made to the draft strategies. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Daniel Rogerson: The Minister sees that the principle behind the amendments follows on from the principle that we were debating earlier. We must ensure that every opportunity is given to members of the public to comment on revisions, which may well be significant. From the viewpoint of Whitehall, they may not seem highly significant, but a small revision to an overarching regional strategy could have huge consequences for a community or area and be a very contentious issue. We must therefore ensure that there is ample opportunity for people in such areas to comment on any revision to the strategy that may affect them greatly. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must accept the need for that consultation and seek to consult as widely as possible.
However, having received those assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Reserve powers of Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Daniel Rogerson: We have expressed suspicion about the Secretary of State having reserve powers, but clause 76 is the heart of the matter. In effect, it says, If you dont get on and do it, we will impose a strategy or a significant revision to a strategy. I have concerns about that. Once again, I would like to hear the Ministers clarification of the purpose of the clause and her explanation of the circumstances in which it might be used.

Rosie Winterton: Clause 76 sets out the Secretary of States reserve power to revise a regional strategy, in whole or in part, where the responsible regional authority has failed to do so at the time specified in regulations or directions. The clause also makes a saving provision for any steps already carried out in relation to a revision of an existing regional spatial or economic strategy at the time that the clause is commenced.
I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will probably not agree with what I am about to say, but we do not believe that the powers afforded to the Secretary of State are excessive. Indeed, the Secretary of States powers in this part of the Bill are broadly similar to those in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The only wholly new powers are in relation to the leaders boards, but that is because the mechanism is a new one.

Daniel Rogerson: Will the Minister explain subsection (6), which states:
If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to do so the Secretary of State may at any time revoke all or any part of a regional strategy?
Expedient is an interesting word, and although it might be customary in such cases, it seems a little wide-ranging. To revoke all or any of a regional strategy is the nuclear option. We have a whole Bill about consultation and involving people, but this tiny little subsection effectively says that if the Secretary of State does not like it, we can rewrite the whole thing at a moments notice. That is a problem.

Rosie Winterton: Again, I can assure the hon. GentlemanI suspect that he will greet this with hollow laughterthat we intend that the Government will use reserve powers sparingly and as a last resort. I do mean that. Obviously the word expedient implies that there would be extremely good reasons for doing so. I must emphasise that the Government have taken enormous steps to devolve power to regional authorities. It is not the Government who, throughout the course of the Bill, have voted against the ability to draw up regional strategies and for there to be democratic accountability through the leaders board.
We want to see the strategies working effectively. There is no reason why they should not, because we believe that this is a good way to deliver economic prosperity and improve competitiveness in the regions. The principle here is that things have to be done at regional level. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State would wish to intervene in such a way would necessarily be as a last resort, and we believe it is important to have these powers as that last resort.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister elaborate a little on a point that I think she made: the reserve powers here are similar to existing powers. As far as I can see, the reserve powers here allow the Minister to revise a regional strategy only if the relevant authority has not done so. I get the impression that, at present, the Secretary of State can revise a regional strategy, even if the regional body has itself revised it. Perhaps she will acquaint me with what the change in the Bill is, or what the existing legislation is.
I will give the Minister a case in point. The regional spatial strategy covering Milton Keynes to Luton was prepared, revising the existing strategy, and published. Naturally it did not include Hertfordshire because that is not part of the area. The relevant councils then decided to revise it and to include among their preferred areas of development parts of north Hertfordshire that had not been in the existing area. Indeed, they held a meeting with the developers proposing to build in my area with Luton council. People from her Department were there, although I do not blame her because she was not in the Department at the time. This secret meeting was held without inviting North Hertfordshire district council, in whose area they were planning to build.
Is the Minister saying that the councils were acting outwith their powers? This clause would not give them such powers. Will there be an improvement on the present situation in such circumstances? Will the clause prevent the Secretary of State from getting into bed with local authorities that are re-revising their strategy after they have been through all the consultation?

Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I give way to the defender of the indefensible.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I simply refer him back to clause 75, which we approved a moment ago and provides for the circumstances about which he is concerned. Clause 76 simply makes provision for a failure by the responsible regional body to come forward with a regional strategy. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State has to act because of the failure of the regional body to produce a strategy.
There are circumstances at present in which the Secretary of State may make revisions to a strategic document prepared by a regional authority that is in some way defective. However, as I said, that is covered by clause 75. I hope that I am not defending the indefensible; I am simply pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have missed a clause.

Peter Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I intended to catch the Chairmans eye on the previous clause, but I am having to try to relate my remarks to this clause instead. His point is well made and well taken, and I withdraw my epithet. None the less, a question still arises: does the clause significantly change the Secretary of States powers to intervene in the kind of circumstances that I described?

Rosie Winterton: Let me set out the range of the powers in the clause. There are powers that enable the Secretary of State to give a steer to the regional authority through guidance and regulations, powers that relate to the Secretary of States role and responsibilities at specific stages of the strategy-making process, and reserve powers as a fall-back. As I said earlier, there are existing reserve powers in respect of the preparation of regional spatial strategies. The Secretary of State has not had to resort to them, so obviously did not on the occasion that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden mentioned. These wholly new powers apply to the leaders board, which is a newly constituted organisation.
Obviously, it is difficult for me to comment on the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. If he wants to write to me about the circumstances, I am more than happy to have a look at it. However, as I said, the existing powers are in section 10 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
I do not think that the powers set out in this clause would be used excessively because, as I tried to explain, that is not what we want. We want regional strategies to be drawn up, but we need a reserve power in case it is necessary to attend to exceptional circumstances.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Revision: supplementary

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Implementation

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

Regional strategy as part of the development plan

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Duties of regional development agencies

Stewart Jackson: I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, at end insert
(1A) The functions referred to in subsection (1) above shall include its duty under subsection (3) of section 6B of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (Delegation of functions by regional development agencies) to propose delegations of certain of its functions to one or more local authorities in its area..

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14Delegation of functions by regional development agencies
(1) The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 6A (delegation of functions to the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency) insert
6B Delegation of functions by regional development agencies
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a regional development agency shall have power to arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by a local authority within their area or jointly by a group of local authorities within that area.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a function shall include any part of a function, or any function or part of a function which is exercisable only in relation to part of the area of a local authority.
(3) A regional development agency shall within six months of the coming into force of this section and at yearly intervals thereafter propose such delegations for the discharge of any of their functions by a local authority within their area, or jointly by a group of local authorities within that area, having regard to the desirability of maximising such delegation.
(4) Whether or not a regional development agency has made proposals under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall have power to direct an agency to make such delegations as he may determine, after taking into account any representations made to him by any local authority in the area concerned, or by the agency.
(5) Two or more local authorities to which any function has been delegated under this section may arrange for it to be discharged by them jointly or in accordance with any executive arrangements agreed by them from time to time..

Stewart Jackson: We are on the home stretch, Mr. Illsley.
The proposals could be designated as the Local Government Association new clause and amendment. They arise from the delegation of powers from RDAs to local authorities, which is important, and flow from discussion and consultation on the sub-national review, which we have mentioned. The Minister often prays in aid the panjandrums of the LGA. We are grateful for their leadership in local government, but they do not always agree with the Minister and the Government. On RDA delegation, the briefing that the LGA provided on Second Reading specifically stated:
It is disappointing that despite the Governments assertions that the Bill is designed to empower communities there has been no movement to allow elected councils to have increased powers and funds to effect real difference in their local areas, particularly during the recession.
The LGA makes a number of key points in support of the new clauseI referred to this when we talked about regional government generally, but it nevertheless merits repetition. Its research showed that although there is a national economy,
there is no evidence that the current Government office boundaries define regional economies. Below the national level, markets for goods and services
and so on
operate at sub-region and city region level.
The LGA also makes the point that there are
roughly 50 sub national functional economic areas in England
alone, and states:
Many decisions...need to be taken at sub-regional, rather than regional level...Our most recent research focuses on the differential effects that the current recession is likely to have on local economies. The research suggests that in the current economic climate it is more important, not less, to delegate decision-making and funding to the level at which it can most effectively be deployed.
That point was also made in the Lords. The LGA specifically mentions what the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise has said about the need to delegate functions. There has been some debate and contention about whether it is necessary to be exact in specifying all the functions and responsibilities for funding that could be delegated to local authorities.

Paul Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite all the Divisions, we now have a chance to achieve consensus on this matter? Were the Minister minded to look favourably on the amendment, we would be able to look favourably on clause 85, which sets up the bare bones of economic prosperity boards, leaving aside all the other clauses that give her a lot of centralising power. In that way, the Government would have the boards, the LGA would have its amendment and everyone would be happy.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend leads me to finish my peroration via a crescendo of consensus. I hope that the Liberal Democratsour doughty fighters for Cornwallare minded to support us.
There is consensus on this matter. The Business and Enterprise Committee has said, specifically with regard to RDAs and the Bill, that there is a need for
the role of local authoritiesand of the communities they representto be strengthened.
If the Minister is truly committed to the devolution of power from RDAs to local authorities, which has a degree of consensus in the Committeethe opinion is prevalent among Government and Opposition members of the CommitteeI hope that she will see fit to accept the amendment and the new clause.

Julia Goldsworthy: I am not entirely sure whether I would call my remarks a peroration, but I hope that they add something to the debate this evening. I would like to return to a comment that I made earlier today about drawing a distinction. Although I should say at the outset that we broadly support what the amendment and the new clause seek to achieve, it is important to draw the distinction between delegating functions and devolving decisions. If anything, we would like the proposals to go further and not only pass down functions to a lower level, but give greater discretion in the decisions that are taken, not simply delivering Government policy at a lower level.
I like the fact that the amendment and the new clause provide us with probably the only opportunity in the discussion so far to talk about devolution and the delegation of functions as a process rather than simply an event. Many of the provisions about petitions involve setting up not only an immovable structure that will be exactly the same in the future but the framework through which it will be necessary to view all future events. There should be a process. Every six months, there should be reviews to discover what else could be passed down. That is another aspect that gives the proposals merits.
The hon. Gentleman called my hon. Friend and myself Cornish crusaders. I would like to think that the Liberal Democrats are not crusading for Cornwall, but across the country. May I be parochial for just a moment to elucidate something that will be a great benefit? Although in earlier debates, the Minister dismissed Cornwalls appetite for some kind of greater representation and recognition as a region in its own right, the proposals would, if the Government accepted them, give people in Cornwall an opportunity to satisfy that appetiteto pass down decision making and the administration of important things such as objective 1 funding and its successor programme, Convergence. That would provide an opportunity to administer those funds at a much more sensible level. At present, Convergence is administered at a regional level, even though the resources are only available to people in Cornwall. That seems to create a ridiculous situation: the allocation of those funds and the decisions about which projects should go ahead are affected by other problems that the RDA is experiencing. If those powers and resources were devolved to Cornwall, it would make much more sense for those decisions to be made there. That is a practical example of how the proposals could make a real difference.
I see nothing controversial in the proposals. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are willing to engage in the process, rather than simply produce a Bill. I hope that they will consider supporting the proposals.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that the LGA will be delighted to know that it has now been called a panjandrum, or whatever phrase was used by Opposition Members, who are excelling themselves today in insults to local councillors. Labour Members are full of praise for the work that councillors do.

Daniel Rogerson: Not parish councillors, though.

Rosie Winterton: Parish councillors have come in for further abuse from some Opposition Members. However, we have been considering how councillors can contribute at both local authority and regional levels to increase economic prosperity in their regions.
The key to our discussions on the new clause is the partnership work that we envisage, regarding the regional development agencies overall strategy, drawn up in consultation and discussion with the leaders boards, which represent the local authorities. That will ensure that RDAs and local authorities work together closely in planning and implementing the regional strategy. We must also ensure that local authorities economic strategies contribute to the regions overall economic prosperity.
Financial assistance could be given to local authorities. We could probably all point to examples within our regions of how RDAs have worked very closely with local authorities on such issues. However, RDAs cannot delegate decision making on where finances are directed, and it is important that RDAs retain the final accountability for funding passed through them. I hope that I can offer the Opposition enough comfort for them not press the amendment or the new clause. We want to ensure close partnerships, and we certainly accept that, in some instances, financial assistance might be given to local authorities. However, we do not believe that it is right to delegate decision-making powers, as set out in the amendment and new clause.

Stewart Jackson: I thought that we would see the sinner repenting over the new clauseI was full of hope, but it is now dashed! We had an opportunity to recognise the reality of the situation. The Government have given a written commitment on this matter. Also, in its submission to the sub-national review, One North East mentioned the delegation of functions to, among other things, special purpose vehicles, economic development companies and urban regeneration companies. In practical terms, there is that recognition among organisations such as the East Midlands Development Agency, which, according to evidence that it gave, has devolved 43 per cent. of its budget to local authorities. It would have been nice if the Government had recognised that progress, following the sub-national review, and formalised it by accepting our amendments, and I am sorry that the Minister has not done so. On that basis, we cannot support the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

Guidance and directions

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Consequential provision

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Regional strategy: amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 83 and 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

EPBs and their areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Illsley. We now move to part 6 of the Bill entitled Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities. If someone was to read clause 85 on its own, rather than together with the other clauses governing conditions under which the proposed economic prosperity boards should be set up, they might conclude that, on paper, those boards look remarkably like the enterprise partnerships proposed in our Green Paper, Control Shift.
The conditions set out in clause 85 are essentially inoffensive on their own, and it would be out of order for me to delve too deeply into the other clauses that relate to economic prosperity boards. However, given that we are in the process of exploring those boards for the first time, it is important to say something generally about the centralised restrictions under which they will operate.
I will not go through the clauses in detail as that would be premature, but they make remarkable reading. The Secretary of State can establish the boards, set their voting powers, membership and voting weight, decide who is on them, dissolve or abolish them and revise their boundaries. Their functions are described in clause 88 only in the broadest possible terms, and there is also a question about funds. In short, we are where we have been often with the Bill, not so much with this clauseI concedebut with many other clauses that relate to economic prosperity boards. The great question is why so many of those clauses have to be on the statute book at all.
When we discussed clause 80 and new clause 14, I thought that we had a chance to reach a consensus and let the clause stand. I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it was not perfect to have power flowing down in that way rather than up, but it seemed that a compromise was possible. Sadly, that was not to be.
It is worth considering where the EPBs fit in to all the various schemes that have been proposed. As we go through the Bill clause by clause, we see Labour Members seeking ways to deal with the fact that elected regional authorities did not turn out to be a runner. The only proposal to date that went to the ballot box was defeated. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that that was not a vote against regional development in generalwe will have to wait to read his memoirs to find out what he meantbut it was undoubtedly a defeat for that scheme.
When one considers the various devices proposed by the Government in the Bill, one can only conclude that, on the one hand, it is possible to have elected regional government controlled by elected peoplenot a policy with which we agree and we have never thought that it would workor, on the other, we can have the type of bottom-up approach that we very nearly arrived at in new clause 14.
The Bill has a series of halfway houses that are extremely confusing. Alas, the economic prosperity boards are a part of that. We have spent most of the day debating the regional element of the Bill and the leaders boards that ultimately will not have power over RDAs. I await elucidation from the Minister, but it is far from clear to me how the boards, which, as I have said, would have the potential to be an enterprise partnership if clause 85 stood alone, are going to work in conjunction with the regional structures that the Government have set up elsewhere.
We have messy mechanisms: the stand-alone economic assessment; the multi-area agreements, which we will discuss later; and the peculiar conjunction of the regional structures that the Minister described. We also have, on the one hand, the leaders board and, on the other, the economic prosperity boards, which, one sees if one turns to a later clause, will deal expressly with economic development and regeneration.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Goodman: Ah, yes, the right hon. Gentleman has been very energetic this afternoon.

Nick Raynsford: If I follow the hon. Gentleman, and he must correct me if I do not, he is not opposed to economic prosperity boards in principle, although he has expressed a lot of concerns about their mechanics. Indeed, when we debated new clause 14, he indicated that there might be a deal, and that if the Government accepted the new clause, the Opposition would be happy to support all of this part of the Bill.

Paul Goodman: No.

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps I got the hon. Gentleman wrong on that, but he certainly has not suggested that he is opposed in principle to the concept of the boards, simply that he has anxieties about some of the details. Will he explain why the Opposition have not tabled a single amendment to this part of the Bill? The only amendment that is due to be debated has been tabled by two of my hon. Friends who, unfortunately, are not members of the Committee.

Paul Goodman: It is, indeed, unfortunate that they are not members of the Committee, but that is a mystery on which only the Whips can cast light.
In our debates on the previous part of the Bill, I said that if the Government had accepted the new clause, we would have had no problem with clause 85 on its own, which simply sets out the basic framework. The problemI am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to sit through this clause by clauseis the highly centralising power that nearly all the other clauses give to the Secretary of State. They seem to us so wretched as to be incapable of amendment.
However, I want to end on a point that will bring a little light and joy into the life of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. If the Minister can speak satisfactorily to this clause, which sets up the bare bones of economic prosperity boards, we will consider not dividing the Committee on it, which will be a rare occurrence in todays proceedings.

Daniel Rogerson: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. We have debated how real regions could be formed by the coming together of local authorities and the communities they represent to constitute a region. From that point of view, this offer might be an avenue for local authorities to come together and work in partnership to deliver some aspects of regional policy.
However, we have also debated the Governments intentions on the wider issue of regions. They feel that the current government boundaries are right, and that is why I am not inclined to think that this is the start of something more meaningful. This idea is very much confined to one set of policiesindeed, the name economic prosperity board implies that it is confined to one, albeit important, aspect of policyand it might conflict with the regional arrangements that are to be in place.
The duplication that the hon. Gentleman pointed out is a problem, as is the potential for confusion in peoples minds as to what an economic prosperity board does, when set against the regional arrangements that we have talked about. It would be far clearer to have a process that worked towards having meaningful regions. However, we have debated that and I shall not detain the Committee on it, although I still hold that view.
I want to draw the Ministers attention to a few issues, the first of which concerns a point that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made. When we discussed regions, he pointed out how ludicrous it is that the south-easttaken together with the eastern region, I supposewraps around London, and he discussed whether it is possible to have meaningful discussion about the economy of the south-east, as it is currently constituted, without London being part of it. Subsection (4) takes the approach that it would be impossible to have that for an economic prosperity board, and that there could not be one local authority in the middle that is not part of something that goes around it. There is inconsistency in Government policy.
At the risk of showing my colours as a Cornish crusader, or whatever was said about that earlier, I have a query about subsection (7), which mentions county council and district council. Will the council of the Isles of Scilly be covered by that measure and be able to participate? Suppose that Cornwall wanted to take something forward; it is now a unitary authority, and it might not have community interests with Devon on some interests, but it might want to do some things with the council of the Isles of Scilly.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that the Opposition have tabled no amendments, but one amendment is supported by a number of Opposition names. It would leave the whole part out, and would mean debating whether economic prosperity boards are worth having. I think they could be, but only as part of a process that would take us towards getting the real regions that we want and that would allow for the bottom-up approach that we have debated in relation to other clauses. However, I am convinced that the Government do not want to take that approach, and that the boards are to be an extra body, alongside regional arrangements. I have real concerns about whether EPBs will be able to achieve what the Government want them to achieve.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.(Mr. Watts.)

Adjourned till Thursday 18 June at Nine oclock.